# (2011) 2 ILRA 739

- **Citation:** (2011) 2 ILRA 739
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-05-25
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 55538 of 2008
- **Bench:** Pankaj Mithal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/2011-2-ilra-739-41934
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Article 226-words
and
phrases-word-'First
Floor-Ground
Floor numbered a first floor-called-below
the ground floor called as "basement" as
counted by all most common wealth
countries-if
as
per
agreement
the
petitioner not satisfied-may file civil suit
for specific performance or damagecourts are not expert body-the number
of
marks
given
by
Development
Authority-perfectly justified-court below
committed great illegality by taking
different view.

Held: Para 32 and 43

In the said system the floor just above
the ground floor is assigned the number
one and is known as first floor and so on.
All floors below the ground level are
either called lower ground or basement.
In almost All Common Wealth Countries
storeys in a building are counted in the
aforesaid manner. Thus, in a seven
storey building the top most floor would
generally be the 6th floor.

In the above view of the matter, I am of
the
firm
opinion
that
as
per
the
agreement dated 8.6.01 respondent No.3
is entitled to a shop of the specified size
on the first floor of the building as
described in the sanctioned building plan
by the Allahabad Development Authority
and the courts below were not justified
in directing to treat any other floor as
the first floor and in directing for
delivering possession of a shop on such a
floor.

## Text

2 All Ram Chandra Yadav and another V. District Judge, Allahabad and others
739
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.05.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 55538 of 2008

Ram Chandra Yadav and another

 ...Petitioner
Versus
District Judge, Allahabad and others

 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shamim Ahmad
Sri Ravi Kiran Jain
SriV.K.Agarwal

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Vishnu Gupta
S.C.

Constitution of India, Article 226-words
and
phrases-word-'First
Floor-Ground
Floor numbered a first floor-called-below
the ground floor called as "basement" as
counted by all most common wealth
countries-if
as
per
agreement
the
petitioner not satisfied-may file civil suit
for specific performance or damagecourts are not expert body-the number
of
marks
given
by
Development
Authority-perfectly justified-court below
committed great illegality by taking
different view.

Held: Para 32 and 43

In the said system the floor just above
the ground floor is assigned the number
one and is known as first floor and so on.
All floors below the ground level are
either called lower ground or basement.
In almost All Common Wealth Countries
storeys in a building are counted in the
aforesaid manner. Thus, in a seven
storey building the top most floor would
generally be the 6th floor.

In the above view of the matter, I am of
the
firm
opinion
that
as
per
the
agreement dated 8.6.01 respondent No.3
is entitled to a shop of the specified size
on the first floor of the building as
described in the sanctioned building plan
by the Allahabad Development Authority
and the courts below were not justified
in directing to treat any other floor as
the first floor and in directing for
delivering possession of a shop on such a
floor.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J.)

1. Petitioners are owners and
landlords of the property No.1029/880
Old Katra, Allahabad. It is said that the
aforesaid property consisted of an old
dilapidated house over 100 years old.
Petitioners
decided
to
develop
the
property and reconstruct a multi-storied
building thereon.

2. Petitioners entered into a
registered agreement with respondent
No.3 on 8.6.01 agreeing for letting out a
portion having an area of 17' X 35' with a
minimum height of 12 ' on the first floor
of
the
proposed
building
facing
Chintamani Road and having access
through the front portion of the building.
The agreement also provided that the
petitioners would construct a multi-storied
building consisting of shops on the
ground floor and the first floor with
residential block on the second floor and
that the landlords would complete the
construction of the first floor within a
period of one year on obtaining sanction
of
the
map
from
the
Allahabad
Development Authority and shall deliver
possession of the same whereupon tenant
would start paying rent @ Rs.3,000/- per
month. The agreement further provided
that if the landlords fail to complete the
constructions within time stipulated and
740 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
deliver its possession to the respondent
No.3 they shall be liable to pay damages
@ Rs.6,000/- per month to respondent
No.3. The tenancy would be for a period
of 21 years with the option of renewal on
such terms as may be agreed between the
parties.

3. The petitioners got the map of the
proposed
building
prepared
and
sanctioned
from
the
Allahabad
Development Authority on 21.9.01. The
sanctioned map is Annexure-9 to the writ
petition and it shows that the building
would consist of a basement, a ground
floor, a first floor and a second floor.

4. Respondent No.3 immediately
thereafter instituted original Suit No.736
of 2001 against the petitioners for
permanent
injunction
restraining
the
petitioners
from
entering
into
any
agreement to sell or let out and deliver
possession of a shop measuring 17' X 35'
on the ground floor of the above property
to any other person except respondent
No.3; mandatory injunction directing the
petitioners to deliver him actual physical
possession of the ground floor shop (as
per sanctioned plan)/first floor shop as per
agreement dated 8.6.01 on the same terms
and conditions as contained in the above
agreement and damages for delay/nonperformance of the agreement dated
8.6.01. In substance the suit envisaged for
a
decree
of
specific
performance
agreement dated 8.6.01 with damages and
for permanent and mandatory injunction.

5. In the aforesaid suit respondent
No.3
also
applied
for
temporary
injunction which was granted vide order
dated 1.3.02 and the petitioners were
restrained from letting out or otherwise to
give a shop 17' X 35' being constructed
just above the basement as per the
approved
map
of
the
Allahabad
Development
Authority.
The
appeal
against the aforesaid interim injunction
order was dismissed by the Additional
District Judge vide judgment and order
dated 6.5.02. However, both the above
orders were set aside by the High Court
vide judgment and order dated 24.5.02
passed in Writ Petition No.22620 of 2002
filed by the petitioners on the ground that
specific performance of the agreement
was not legally permissible when the
agreement
provided
for
adequate
compensation for its breach.

6. The aforesaid judgment and order
of the High Court was taken to the
Supreme Court by respondent No.3 by
means of Civil Appeal No.6677 of 2002.
The Supreme Court by a short judgment
dated 30.4.2008 allowed the appeal, set
aside the order of the High Court and
directed the parties to strictly adhere to
the conditions in the agreement dated
8.6.01. The Trial Court was directed to
appoint
a
local
Advocate
as
Commissioner to deliver possession to the
tenant
in
terms
of
the
aforesaid
agreement. The suit was ordered to be
closed with the above directions. The
relevant extract of the order of the
Supreme
Court
dated
30.4.08
is
reproduced herein below:-

"Since there is an agreement
entered into between the landlord and
tenant we are of the view that the terms
of agreement should be strictly adhered
to by both the parties. We accordingly
dispose of this appeal with the direction
that the parties should strictly adhere to
the
conditions
contained
in
the
agreement dated 8.6.01. We, therefore,
direct the Trial Court to appoint a local
2 All Ram Chandra Yadav and another V. District Judge, Allahabad and others
741
Advocate (Commissioner) to go to the
disputed building and deliver possession
to the tenant in terms of the aforesaid
agreement. The remuneration of the
Commissioner shall be fixed by the Trial
Court.

The order impugned passed by the
High Court is accordingly set aside. In
view of our aforesaid direction the suit
shall stand closed.

The appeal is accordingly disposed
of."

7. It appears that the Trial Court
vide order dated 24.5.08 appointed an
Advocate (Commissioner) for affecting
delivery of possession as directed by the
Supreme Court.

8. The Advocate (Commissioner)
submitted a report on 29.5.08 to the effect
that delivery of possession could not be
affected. According, to the Advocate
(Commissioner)
there
is
a
dispute
between the parties as to which of the
portion would be considered as the first
floor portion as at the time of agreement
no basement was contemplated.

9. Subsequently, another Advocate
(Commissioner) was appointed by the
Trial Court vide order dated 30.5.08.

10. Thereafter, vide order dated
23.7.08 the Trial Court proceeded to
decide the controversy with regard to the
location of the first floor and the portion
which was to be let out to respondent
No.3. The Trial Court vide order dated
23.7.08 held that the floor above the so
called basement which is being claimed as
the ground floor by the petitioners is to be
treated as the first floor and respondent
No.3 is entitled to possession of a shop
area 17' X 15' on the same. Necessary,
directions for delivery of possession
within three days through Advocate
(Commissioner) was also issued.

11. The said order was challenged
by the petitioners in Civil Revision
No.196 of 2008 but the same was
dismissed by the District Judge vide order
dated 18.10.08.

12. Aggrieved by the judgment and
order dated 18.10.08 of the revisional
court and that of the the Trial Court dated
23.7.08 determining the floor above the
basement as the first floor and directing
for delivery of possession of a shop on the
said floor to respondent No.3, petitioners
have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this
Court contending that the floor above the
basement cannot be the first floor and the
courts below have materially erred in
treating the basement as the ground floor.

13. In short, the parties are at
variance with regard to the first floor on
which a shop in the building is to be given
to respondent No.3 as per agreement
dated 8.6.01.

14. In order to resolve the above
controversy I would first like take into
consideration the relevant terms and
conditions of the agreement itself. The
salient features of the agreement are as
under:-

(i) the owners and landlords would
let out a portion of the first floor area
approximately 17' X 35' with minimum
height 12' for the purposes of carrying
business
to
the
proposed
tenant
respondent No.3 on rent;
742 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011

(ii) the shop would be in the front
portion of the building facing Chintamani
Road, Allahabad having access through
front portion of the building;

(iii) the owners and landlords were
obliged to complete the construction and
to deliver possession within one year of
the date of obtaining sanction from the
Allahabad Development Authority;

(iv) the tenant shall pay rent @
Rs.3,000/- per month inclusive of house
tax, water tax, water charges, sewer tax
etc. and it would be the responsibility of
the tenant to obtain electricity connection
and to pay electricity dues;

(v) the tenancy shall be for a period
of 21 years from the date of possession
which may be renewed at the option of
the tenant;

(vi) during subsistence of the tenancy
rent shall be increased every five years by
10% of Rs.3,000/-;

(vii) tenant shall pay a sum of
Rs.2,00,000/- as security deposit which
has already been paid vide Cheque
Nos.8807494l
and
8807495
of
Rs.50,000/- each both dated 21.5.01
drawn on Dena Bank, Johnstonganj,
Allahabad and Rs.1,00,000/- in cash;

(viii) the said security would be
refunded with 12% interest on the shop
being vacated by the tenant;

(ix) in the event landlords fail to
complete
construction
and
deliver
possession within time stipulated in the
agreement they will be liable to damages
@ Rs.6,000/- per month.

15. It may be noted that in the
aforesaid agreement there is no stipulation
as to the maximum height and the
numbers of storeys of the proposed
building. The agreement does not provide
that the building would only be of three
storeys or that there would be no
basement.

16. According to the aforesaid
agreement the tenant is entitle for a shop
having an approximate area of 17' X 35'
with minimum height of 12' on the first
floor of the proposed building in premises
No.1029/880, Old Katra, Allahabad in the
front portion facing Chintamani Road and
having access through the front portion of
the building.

17. Petitioners in order to carry out
the aforesaid agreement subsequently got
the map of the building sanctioned by
Allahabad Development Authority dated
21.9.01. The map of the building so
sanctioned provides for a basement, a
ground floor, a first floor and the second
floor with a terrace. In other words, the
approved map is of four storey building
including the basement.

18. The Amin report paper No.29-A
dated 9.7.08 establish that the building so
constructed consist of four storeys. The
lowest storey is about 5 1⁄2' below and 3 1⁄2'
above the road level. It has several shops
with a five wide lane in the middle. The
second storey above it also has four shops
and 5' 1'' lane in the middle. These two
stories have their frontage towards
Chintamani Road. The third storey
consists of a hall 51' X 15 and 12' in
height. The top storey has a permanent
construction in half portion but the same
was not available for inspection.
2 All Ram Chandra Yadav and another V. District Judge, Allahabad and others
743

Respondent No.3 in the original suit
instituted had claimed the following
reliefs:-

(i) That by means of permanent
injunction restrain the defendants from
catering into any agreement to sell/or any
agreement to let or otherwise creating any
change in respect of suit property or
deliver possession of one shop measuring
approximately 17' X 35' situated on
ground floor of House No.1029/880, Old
Katra, Allahabad to any other person
except the plaintiff.

(ii) That by means of Mandatory
injunction this Hon'ble Court may be
pleased to order the defendants to deliver
to the plaintiff actual and physical
possession of the ground floor shop (as
per sanctioned plan)/First Floor Shop (as
per registered agreement dated 8.6.2011),
as lease on the terms and conditions given
in the aforesaid registered contract dated
8.6.01 by evicting the defendants or any
other person or persons who may found in
possession of the said shop having been
let in by the defendants.

(iii) That a decree of a sum of
Rs.6,000/- per month be passed in favour
of plaintiff against defendants by way of
compensation or damages for nonperformance of the agreement from 8.6.01
till the date of delivery of actual and
physical possession by the defendants to
the plaintiff as per clause II of the
aforesaid registered contract dated 8.6.01.

(iv) That any other relief which this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in
the circumstances of the case be awarded
to the plaintiff against defendants.

(v) That cost of this suit be awarded
to the plaintiff against the defendants.

19. In sum and substance the reliefs
claimed in the suit were with regard to the
specific performance of the agreement
dated 8.6.01 and for damages for default
or delay and as per the agreement and it
was specifically claimed that respondent
No.3 be given possession of the first floor
shop as per the agreement which in effect
is the ground floor as per the sanctioned
plan. To put it differently respondent No.3
claimed shop on the ground floor as per
the sanctioned may though under the
agreement a shop on the first floor was
agreed to be let out.

20. In the aforesaid suit no issues
were framed and the parties had not
adduced any evidence. The suit was not
decided by the courts below on merits. In
the said suit only an application for
temporary
injunction
was
decided
whereupon the matter traveled up to the
Supreme Court. The Supreme Court vide
order dated 30.4.08 directed the suit to
stand closed and in view of the agreement
entered into between the parties directed
that the parties should strictly adhere to
the conditions contain in the agreement
and the Trial Court would appoint a local
Advocate
(Commissioner)
to
ensure
delivery of possession to the tenant in
terms of the agreement.

21. In the judgment and order of the
Supreme Court there is no adjudication of
the respective claims of the parties. The
Supreme Court has also refrained itself
from specifying the shop liable to be
given to the respondent No.3 or the storey
which was to be treated as the first floor
according to the agreement. Thus, as the
parties were in variance with regard to the
744 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
storey on which the shop has to be given
to
the
tenant,
the
Advocate
(Commissioner) was unable to execute
the writ of delivery of possession.
Thereafter, the Trial Court took upon the
task of executing the order of the
Supreme Court and went on to adjudicate
the claim with regard to the location of
the shop or the storey on which it is to be
given to respondent No.3.

22. I have heard Sri Ravi Kiran Jain,
Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Shamim
Ahmad,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners and Sri Vishnu Gupta, learned
counsel appearing for respondent No.3.

The pleadings exchanged between
the parties have also been examined by
me.

23. The main thrust of the argument
of Sri Jain, is that under the agreement
respondent No.3 is entitle to a shop on the
first floor of the building. The courts
below are not justified in treating the floor
above the basement as the first floor as
the same is the ground floor and the first
floor is the one above the ground floor.

24. The above submission has been
countered by Sri Vishnu Gupta and it has
been contended that at the time of the
agreement there was no proposal for
constructing a basement. The basement
being the lowest floor, the floor above it
would naturally be a first floor and as
such the courts below have not erred in
accepting the claim of respondent No.3.
He has also submitted that the agreement
further provided for letting out a shop to
respondent No.3 not only on the first floor
but in the front portion facing Chintamani
Road and having access through the front
portion of the building. The so called first
floor as per the sanctioned map does not
have access from the Chintamani Road
and as such it is not suitable for
commercial purposes.

25. I have considered the respective
submissions of the parties in the light of
the pleadings and the documents on
record.

26. There is no material on record to
establish that at the time of entering into
an agreement there was any specific
agreement between the parties with regard
to the plan/ map according to which the
proposed building was to be constructed.
The map of the building was got prepared
and approved subsequently.

27. In the agreement the basic
requirement was that the petitioners
would be offered a shop of the area
specified on the first floor of the building
on rent in the front portion facing
Chintamani Road and having its access
through the front portion of the building
for commercial use.

28. The petitioners have not denied
to offer a shop of the size specified but
the difficulty has arisen due to rival
claims as to the storey on which the shop
would be located.

29. In the circumstances, the main
question which falls for consideration is
as to which of the storeys of the building
would constitute the first floor of the
building.

30. A storey is any level part of the
building having a permanent roof. Ground
floor is the floor closest to the level of
street and is considered to be a principal
2 All Ram Chandra Yadav and another V. District Judge, Allahabad and others
745
floor of the building whereas basement is
storey below the ground floor.

31. There are two major schemes in
use across the world for the numbering of
the floors of a building. The most
commonly used scheme is the British
convention which is also being followed
in India.

32. In the said system the floor just
above the ground floor is assigned the
number one and is known as first floor
and so on. All floors below the ground
level are either called lower ground or
basement. In almost All Common Wealth
Countries storeys in a building are
counted in the aforesaid manner. Thus, in
a seven storey building the top most floor
would generally be the 6th floor.

33. It appears that the Allahabad
Development Authority has also adopted
the Birtish system of numbering the floors
of
buildings
and
has
accordingly
approved the map of the petitioners by
describing the floor which is practically at
the ground level i.e. 5 1⁄2' below 3 1⁄2 '
above it to be the ground floor and the
storeys above it by giving them numbers
1 and 2 i.e. first floor and second floor.
The floor below the ground floor has been
described as the basement. The aforesaid
sanctioned map is a sacred and a most
sacrosanct document having the approval
of a specialized body consisting of experts
in the field of architecture and a planning.

34. It is well settled that the
decisions of experts or specialized bodies
having technical knowledge in the subject
are rarely interfered with by law courts
unless found to be suffering from the vice
of arbitrariness or are against settled
principles. No such ground for inference
in
the
decision
of
the
Allahabad
Development Authority is shown to exist.

35. It is also a common experience
that elevators used in a multi-storied
building are also on the same pattern. The
ground floor is generally assigned a
symbol G or Zero and all storeys above
ground floor are given numbers in
sequence 1, 2, 3 and 4 and so on whereas
all storeys below ground level are
assigned numbers by pre-fixing the sign
of Minus (-) such as -1, -2, and -3.

36. In some buildings there are
mezzanine floor or either intermediate or
subterranean floors which are differently
illustrated.

37. The basic principle which is
culled out is that the floor which is
closest/nearest to the ground level is
normally described as the ground floor. In
the present case, the ground floor
described the sanctioned map is closest to
the ground level being only 3 1⁄2 ' above it.
The basement is 5 1⁄2 ' below the ground
level and as such is not closest to ground
level. Therefore, it can not be treated as
the ground floor.

38. The agreement actually has no
reference of a basement. The lower most
storey of the building is admittedly 5 1⁄2'
below the road level and 3 1⁄2' above the
road level. It is virtually a basement being
more than half below the road level.
Generally, in India any storey or portion
of a building which goes below the
ground level in common parlance is
described as a basement. Technically it
may be half way and may be called a
mezzanine floor which is generally
referred to a structure half way between
the first floor and the second floor. The
746 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
concept of half way floor has now
universal application and is referred to
any storey which is in between the two
stories such as in the present case
regarding basement.

39. In any view, when the lowest
storey which is 5 1⁄2' below and 3 1⁄2' above
the ground the floor which is closest to
the road level has rightly been described
by the Development Authority as the
ground floor in the sanctioned map and as
such there is no alternative but to treat the
same as the ground floor and any
deviation from the same would only lead
to confusion and chaos.

40. In this view of the matter, I am
of the opinion that the courts below have
certainly exceeded their jurisdiction in
directing for treating the ground floor
shown in the map sanctioned to be the
first floor and in directing for providing
shop to respondent No.3 on the said floor.
There was no justification for the courts
below to deviate from the sanctioned map
to take a different view and to give the
ground floor the nomenclature of the first
floor.

41. The next submission which falls
for consideration is that the first floor as
per the sanctioned map does not have a
shop but only a hall as is evident from the
report of the Amin. It has no access from
the front of the building and is therefore,
not suitable for commercial purpose may
be a valid point in favour of respondent
No.3. However, it would not be of much
help to respondent No.3 as admittedly the
building
had
been
constructed
in
accordance with the map sanctioned by
the Allahabad Development Authority
which is deemed to be in accordance with
by laws and the regulations of the
Development Authority. Therefore, any
change in the building plan may not be
possible at this stage except for some
internal arrangement wherein the hall may
be partitioned and converted into a shop
of the size specified to accommodate
respondent No.3. but it may not be
possible to alter the entrance and to
provide access to respondent No.3 from
the front of the building . This however
would not compel the petitioners to let out
a shop to respondent No.3 on any other
floor other than the first floor which is the
most fundamental condition.

42.

Therefore,
in
the
event
respondent No.3 is not satisfied and
considers that the agreement has been
violated the only remedy available to him
is to sue the petitioners for the breach of
the agreement and to claim damages
which relief actually claimed but was not
granted.

43. In the above view of the matter,
I am of the firm opinion that as per the
agreement dated 8.6.01 respondent No.3
is entitled to a shop of the specified size
on the first floor of the building as
described in the sanctioned building plan
by the Allahabad Development Authority
and the courts below were not justified in
directing to treat any other floor as the
first floor and in directing for delivering
possession of a shop on such a floor.

44.

Accordingly,
the
orders
impugned
dated
23.7.2008
and
18.10.2008 are set aside/ quashed and the
court of first instance is directed to ensure
that the respondent No.3 is delivered
possession of a shop having an area of 17'
X 35' with minimum height of 12' on the
first floor as has been described in the
sanctioned map of the building in
2 All Vinod Kumar Yadav V. State of U.P. and others
747
premises
No.1029/880
Old
Katra,
Allahabad preferably on the front portion
facing Chintamani Road Allahabad.

45.

Writ
Petition
allowed
accordingly.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.05.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAN VIJAI SINGH,J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 69274 of 2009

Vinod Kumar Yadav

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
P. N. Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondent:
C. S. C.
Sri M.C. Chaturvedi

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226Dismissal from Service-on allegation of
filing forged Cast Certificate-petitioner
declared himself as 'Ahir' by cast-from
very
beginning
stated
that
being
unaware
with
procedure
of
Cast
Certificate had given Rs. 500/-to the
Munshi-and an FIR against guilty Munshi
lodged
under
direction
of
Courtdisciplinary
authority
inflated
punishment of dismissal-in meantime
Cast Certificate issued by competent
authority
produced
before
revisional
authority-who confirmed the order of
dismissal on mechanical manner-heldorder entails civil consequences can not
be passed without affording opportunity
of hearing-when Counsel as well as
Standing Counsel unable to produce any
rule regulation or procedure regarding
issue of Cast Certificate-a villager little
man can not be held guilty for the
misdeed of Munshi working in Tehsilorder
of
dismissal
set-a-side
with
direction to decide as fresh in light of
observation made by court.

Held: Para 21 and 22

Otherwise also to get an employment
now a days is a hard task and when a
person is in a service, so many things
depend
on
him.
Therefore,
before
imposing a penalty of cancellation of
selection termination/dismissal/removal
from service, the authorities empowered
for imposing such penalties must take
due care and caution.

In the present case as obviously pending
statutory
proceedings
when
the
petitioner has brought on record the
caste certificate and prayed with all
humility that this aspect of the matter be
considered as he has been cheated and
has
been
made
victim
of
the
circumstances. It was the duty of the
authority concerned to look into the
same instead discarding the same with
closed
eye.
Otherwise
also
as
the
petitioner's selection has been cancelled
on the ground of fraud played by the
petitioner, therefore, the petitioner was
entitled for notice and before issuing
show cause notice to the petitioner the
impugned order could not have been
passed.
Case law discussed:
2011 (1) ADJ 635; 2005 (6) SCC 149; 1993
SCC 259; 2000(1) SCC Page 152; 2008 Vol.
(10) ADJ 283;Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs. State of
U.P. and others, passed in Writ Petition No.
51282 of 2007 decided on 27.01.2010,

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ran Vijai Singh, J. )

1. Through this writ petition, the
petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of
certiorari quashing the orders dated
10.11.2009, 29.1.2008 and 21.8.2007.
Vide
order
dated
21.8.2007,
the
Superintendent of Police, Ghazipur has
cancelled the petitioner's selection on the
ground that while entering in the service,